Chronic hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 cared for by the public health system have higher mortality than those treated in private facilities: analysis of the Brazilian dialysis registry.

PURPOSE: Brazil is the third country globally in dialysis patients. Little is known about the impact of the type of health insurance on the outcome of these patients after COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, and dialysis-related parameters from a retrospective cohort study of 1866 Brazilian chronic hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 from Feb 2020-July 2021. We evaluated the influence of health insurance (private vs. public) on the intensive care unit admission and 90 day fatality risk. RESULTS: From 1866 hemodialysis patients, 455 (24%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 350 (19%) died. The mean age was 57.5 years, 88% had public health insurance. Crude case-fatality rate was not different between groups (private vs. public risk ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.82-1.52, p = 0.498). In fully adjusted multivariate models, patients with private health insurance did not have a higher chance to be admitted to an intensive care unit (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.63-1.50, p = 0.888), but they presented a lower death risk (hazard ratio 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.85, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The type of health insurance did not influence the access of hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 to an intensive care unit, but patients with private health insurance had a lower mortality risk.

The Prevalence of Nondiabetic Renal Diseases in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus in the University Hospital of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of nondiabetic renal diseases (NDRDs) in renal biopsies of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in the University Hospital of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo. Research Design and Methods. We conducted a retrospective study including kidney biopsies performed in diabetic patients between 1987 and 2013. We evaluated 79 biopsies during this period. The primary variable was the prevalence of NDRD in patients with DM. The secondary variables were the presence of systemic arterial hypertension (SAH), hematuria, time since diagnosis of DM, serum creatinine, and proteinuria levels. The cases were divided into the following groups: isolated diabetic nephropathy (DN-group I), isolated nondiabetic renal diseases (NDRD-group II), associated NDRD/DN (group III), and associated NDRD+NDRD/DN (group IV). RESULTS: Most of the patients (58.22%) presented only alterations arising from DN. NDRDs were present in 41.77% of the patients. Membranous glomerulonephritis (30.3%) and IgA nephropathy (24.24%) were the most prevalent NDRDs. We found no differences between female and male patients with NDRD when assessing the secondary variables. A time since diagnosis of five years or less revealed a statistical difference (p = 0.0005) in the comparison between the isolated DN (group I) and the NDRD+NDRD/DN (group IV). The other secondary variables were not significant in the comparison of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the prevalence of NDRD is 41.77%. Membranous glomerulonephritis was the most prevalent NDRD in our study. We also conclude that the probability of the presence of NDRD with or without concomitant DN is greater for patients who had biopsies with a time since diagnosis of five years or less. A time since diagnosis of ten years or more does not allow the exclusion of the presence of NDRD.